Defining rationality to include symmetry strips the theory of empirical content
Evidence
We must be careful not to make symmetry part of the definition of rationality; to do so would destroy the empirical relevance of the theory and simply make symmetry an independent axiom. We must have a plausible definition of rationality that does not mention symmetry and show that asymmetry in the bargaining expectations would be inconsistent with that definition. — Thomas C. Schelling, The Strategy of Conflict, 650
Categorization
- XREF: connects to: Impartiality’s false symmetry neutralizes opposition and suppresses class content; Mathematical symmetry fails as a bargaining principle under value uncertainty — Thomas C. Schelling, The Strategy of Conflict, 283; Asymmetry cannot be proven inconsistent with player rationality — Thomas C. Schelling, The Strategy of Conflict, 643 (+2 more)
Related
- Mathematical symmetry fails as a bargaining principle under value uncertainty (similarity 0.90)
- Asymmetry cannot be proven inconsistent with player rationality (similarity 0.89)
- Non-symmetry beats both committed symmetry and committed asymmetry. (similarity 0.83)
- Pure symmetry can single out a unique tacit-coordination point (similarity 0.80)
- Perfect move symmetry neutralizes all interesting bargaining moves in advance. (similarity 0.79)
- Impartiality’s false symmetry neutralizes opposition and suppresses class content (similarity 0.79)
Broader Connections
- Mathematical symmetry fails as a bargaining principle under value uncertainty
#exemplifies(0.82) — Thomas C. Schelling, The Strategy of Conflict, 283 - Impartiality’s false symmetry neutralizes opposition and suppresses class content
#expands(0.78) - Asymmetry cannot be proven inconsistent with player rationality
#corroborates(0.75) — Thomas C. Schelling, The Strategy of Conflict, 643